JUDGMENT :

VIVEK SINGH THAKUR, J.

1. In instant petition, petitioners have assailed part of impugned order dated 22.5.2019 passed by learned Senior Civil Judge Court No. 1, Amb in an application filed on behalf of plaintiffs/petitioners, under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short “CPC”) for amendment of plaint, whereby application has been allowed partly, by permitting the amendment by allowing plaintiffs to plead that suit property is Joint Hindu family coparcenary ancestral property under Mitakshra Hindu Law, but rejecting second proposed amendment to add another property situated at Yamunanagar, Haryana in the suit property in present suit, on the ground of resjudicata with observation that suit property situated in Haryana was subject matter of the suit which was filed in a competent Court in Haryana, but was got dismissed as withdrawn unconditionally on 11.7.2016 by plaintiffs on the alleged objection of defendants.

2. Plaintiffs, being aggrieved by rejection of proposed amendment, disallowing addition of property of Yamunanagar in the suit property, has assailed this part of the impugned order, passed by trial Court, on the ground that suit with subject matter of property at Yamunanagar in Haryana, was withdrawn with specific statement that suit property of that suit shall be added in suit property of present suit pending at Amb.

3. The conclusion, that suit filed at Yamunanagar was withdrawn unconditionally, has been drawn by the trial Court on the basis of order dated 11.7.2016 announced in Daily Lok Adalat by Additional Civil Judge, Yamunanagar at Jagadhri, which reads as under:-

“Bharti Sharma Vs. Rahul Sharma

Present: Plaintiff Bharti Sharma in person with Sh.Sunil Kumar, Advocate.

Sh.Sourabh Kaushik, Advocate for the defendant.

Suit received by way of assignment. It be checked and registered.

File taken up today in Daily Lok Adalat.

Today plaintiff Bharti Sharma has personally appear and suffered a statement thereby seeking to withdraw the present suit. She is identified by Sh. Ssunil Kumar, Advocate for the plaintiff. Statement recorded separately.

Heard. In view of the above mentioned statement, the present suit is hereby dismissed as withdrawn unconditionally. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.

Announced in Daily Lok Adalat.

11.07.2016

(Sunil Jindal)

Additional Civil Judge,

Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri.”

4. English translation of statement of plaintiff No. 1, on the basis of which the suit was withdrawn, reads as under:-

“Stated that present suit is being withdrawn on technical ground. A suit related to the property of my husband, filed prior in time, is pending adjudication at Amb in District Una, H.P., therefore, does not want to continue present suit. Be consigned. The property of my husband, situated at Yamunanagar shall be challenged in case pending in Una.”

5. Order 23 Rule 1(1) of CPC provides that a plaintiff, at any time after the institution of a suit, may against all or any of the defendant(s), abandon his suit or abandon a part of his claim. Rule 1(3) of order 23 of CPC provides that where there is some formal defect in the suit leading to its failure or there are sufficient grounds for allowing the plaintiff to institute a fresh suit for the subject matter of the suit or part of a claim, the Court may grant permission to withdraw to the plaintiff from such suit or such part of the claim with liberty to institute a fresh suit in respect of subject matter of such suit or such part of claim. Order 23 Rule 1(4) CPC provides that when any suit or part of claim has been abandoned under Sub Rule (1) or a suit or part of claim has been withdrawn without permission referred in sub Rule (3), plaintiff beside liability to pay cost as may be awarded by the Court, shall also be precluded from instituting any fresh suit in respect of such subject matter or such part of the claim.

6. As has also been canvassed on behalf of defendants, the trial Court, for mention of the fact in the order passed b